Arsat-H 20/2.8 mini review

[aoleg]

UPDATE: Full review with sample pictures now available in my blog at http://www.prime35.com/arsat-h-20mm-f-2-8/

...

Just received a brand-new Arsat-H 20/2.8 in Nikon mount. I shot quite a few test images with an adapter on Canon 5DmkII. Below are my impressions so far. A more comprehensive review with sample pictures will follow in a few days.

According to the manual, its optical construction includes a floating element, allowing it to maintain its optical quality across the focusing range.

This lens is quite diminutive, about the size and weight of a Nikkor 50/1.4. Build quality is barely adequate. My copy is a brand new one, it was sealed in a box; yet its aperture already forms a very irregular shape, and its focusing ring is far from being even. The front of the lens slightly wobbles. I haven't seen lenses that would be built worse than this one. However, it can still be mounted and used on the camera, and that's what really matters.

Optically, it's nothing to rave about wide open. Center is quite sharp, but edges and corners are soft. Well, 'soft' doesn't say it all; the corners are some kind of soup. At f/4, corners remain soft. However, by f/5.6 the lens suddenly changes, becoming rather sharp in the center and reasonable in the corners. At f/8, it's sharp across the frame except extreme corners, which never reach even the 'good' territory. By f/11, diffraction starts to show, decreasing resolution slightly. F/16 is even softer due to diffraction.

Chromatic aberrations are pronounced. I guess it's hard to correct in a UWA lens without aspherical elements.

Geometric distortion is noticeable, and is of a complex type. Barrel distortion in the middle of the frame turns into pincushion distortion near the edges. This lens is hardly suitable for architectural photography.

Verdict: used between f/5.6-11, this lens can produce reasonably sharp images. Being a 20mm full-frame rectlinear ultra wide angle lens, this one competes with some much more expensive lenses as well as used UWA's such as Tamron and Tokina 17/3.5. If you're going to use an UWA lens infrequently, this is a good, reasonably priced choice. I paid $113 for my copy; that's about right for this lens. For $150, there are better alternatives, and $200 buys a really nice manual focus UWA lens.

[rbelyell]

thanks man, that was very nice of you to post this review. coincidentally, i have been looking for a 17-21mm prime, but have been put off by the prices, so had settled on the arsat as a reasonably priced one--and being russian, i thought it might have the character of a mir or helios.

i think, without knowing for certain, that the older arsats were better built than the new ones. i am curious what you thought about the character of the lens apart from sharpness--does it show its russian heritage like the helios?

[Attila]

Many thanks!

[aoleg]

[Sevo]

[ChrisLilley]

[aoleg]

Used the lens in the wild. Full review with quite a few images now published in my blog at http://www.prime35.com/arsat-h-20mm-f-2-8/

In two words, I found the lens quite usable. Reasonably sharp across the frame by f/11, very nice contrast, impressive handling of flare, saturated and reasonably neutral colors. Quite easy to use, too: just set it to f/11, focus all the way to infinity, and shoot! Kind of turns my 5DmkII into a point-and-shoot camera

[LucisPictor]

Thanks for your work!

Well, at f/11 every lens is usable.
And as far as Russian built is concerned, I think you can be lucky or in trouble.
I've got an optically brilliant Telear 3.5/200 with poor aperture built.
But many other Russian lenses (Jupiter-21, Jupiter-9, Tair-11...) were built like tanks...
It seems that the newer have more problems.

[aoleg]

[ChrisLilley]

[aoleg]

[LucisPictor]

[Lena]

Is the nikon mount of Arsat pre-AI?

[sichko]